Catholicism and the Supernatural

[Chip00]

Originally Posted by Rick Snyder

“acceptable norms of behavior”

Devotion to anything is in the eyes of the beholder. If I say I am a devote antagonist but agree with everyone then you have the ability to tell me that you don’t think I am an antagonist and you can even explain as to why you think that way. You by no means have the right, as it relates to DR1, to call me ‘ignorant’ for my declaration. In posts #3 and 29 are the only posts in this thread that calls anyone names and one post was deleted so I can’t comment on it. In post #49 there was a mention, name calling if you will, directed toward all religions and beliefs and due to its broad scope I wouldn’t classify it as name calling. Post #51 called someone ‘funny’ but it is very obvious the word ‘humorous’ is what the author of that post meant and I don’t consider that name calling.

Rick - first of all I'm a little surprised that a person of your obvious credentials and intelligence was offended by my use of the term "ignorant". Yes, I realize to many "ignorant" has become a "negative" term used for name calling but that was not my intention. Therefore, instead of "ignorant" I believe "unaware" and/or "uniformed" will equally suffice.

Furthermore, I have no issue with people believing whatever they want to believe but I don't understand why if, I, as a lifelong member of the Catholic Church and with the credentials of actually having been trained in the established and approved beliefs cannot defend her against attacks based on mistruths. I understand many, many, many people do not like the Catholic Church in any way shape or form and it is their right, which I, as a proponent of laissez faire do not wish do deny them. I only wish to address the issue of uninformed speaking on the Catholic Church's behalf or it's purported beliefs. If someone attempts to "smear" a dear friend of yours and you know the information is misguided at best or worst, would you not defend this person and speak the truth you know?

[Chris]

Like I said to you in a pm Chip - We do not talk about our religions here, we don't defend them, and we don't attack other people's religions. The only reason this thread is still alive, is that people are in a discussion ... not in a personal mode of defending or attacking anything. You are not permitted to do this on the board and all the moderators will enforce this, as we've seen what happens if we don't.

The 'religion'? that developed from all the sources in the Caribbean - slaves, original inhabitants and Spain, is generally called Santeria. Santeria is commonly known as a syncretistic Caribbean religion. It is not a Catholic religion, but has grown from, and borrowed from the symbols and rituals and specifically the Saints.

No-one has attacked that, or defended that. No-one has attacked the Catholic faith but you persist in attacking all and everyone - even the protestants as per your post number 2. You assume nobody knows what is Catholic, and what is not. Note, in this thread, you are the only person whose religion is even visible. No-one else has made statements about what they are, and how they worship. It is against the policies of this board - and is not to be discussed here.

Rick will certainly come to his own conclusion here, but it is becoming more trouble than what it is worth. You are now going directly against what two moderators have repeatedly told you.

[bob saunders]

This link gives a fairly accurate descrition of Voodoo, and provides many links, Also provides some interesting information on tolerence and respect of others beliefs.
VODUN (and related religions: Candomble, Lucumi, Macumba, Voodoo, Vodoun, & Yoruba)


This link provides descrition of Santeria
Santeria: African Gods In America

[A.Hidalgo]

Originally Posted by bob saunders

This link provides descrition of Santeria
Santeria: African Gods In America

Interesting article in that it gives a historical perspective on Santeria in Latin countries. We must be mindful that it is written by a Protestant Evangelical author who has his own agenda to execute. Further into the article he criticizes the Catholic Church for making the mistake of not performing the conversion to the faith properly, but that the evangelicals have the correct formula. Which brings me to the bottom quote

Originally Posted by Rick Snyder

Anyway, in almost every belief that uses a documented book as a source of teachings of that belief there is one phrase that they all contain. Though the wording varies a little in each book they all convey the same message. That message, if followed by those believers, would insure a very peaceful coexistence between all people, regardless of their beliefs, throughout the world.


Rick

History has shown the difficulty in attaining this when one group thinks they have the answer because their's is the correct interpretation.

[Rick Snyder]

Chip,

I really had no desire to go here but as your post used my quote, and everyone should know by now what that indicates to me, I must respond directly to you. You will note that my prior post was directed at no particular person through a name and all quoted words were used with quotation marks with no reference as to the person that made such statements. I did use post numbers but that was used to prove the validity of my statements and required a person to go back in the thread if they were so inclined to determine who had used the words as stated.

First off let me say that I was not offended by the use of the word (ignorant/ignorance) especially as it wasn’t directed at me, except in a proxy setting which holds no significance. As indicated by you, “I realize to many "ignorant" has become a "negative" term used for name calling”, and regardless as to your ‘intension’ the words "unaware" and/or "uniformed" would definitely have been more appropriate but as you didn’t use either of those words we are in our present mode. I, as a moderator, must weigh that which I read and try to determine if the ‘DR1 rules’ have crossed that proverbial line in the sand. Like you I too know how some people feel about the word ‘ignorant/ignorance’ and therefore try to never use it and point it out when it is used.

Now I wish you to see your statement from the post above again, “I have no issue with people believing whatever they want to believe but I don't understand why if, I, as a lifelong member of the Catholic Church and with the credentials of actually having been trained in the established and approved beliefs cannot defend her against attacks based on mistruths” and now present the post from Windeguy whereas he said;

“You are of course correct that that anything is possible, despite how unlikely it could be. I see no reason to believe in an eternal soul and/or supreme being(s), reincarnation, etc.

At latest count, how many "one true religions" are there in the world? Nothing I have seen would ever lead me to "believe nor have faith" in such things. The various religions have various levels of mind control over the population which is sometimes referred to as the opiate of the masses. These religions try to provide an explanation for why we are here and what will happen with different explanations depending upon the religion.”

From looking at his post I see no attack on the ‘Catholic church’ much less the word ‘Catholic’ contained therein. I will admit that there may or may not be an insinuation of the ‘Catholic church’ in his use of the words, “The various religions”, but regardless of that ‘supposed insinuation’ I see no reason for you to say to him, “shows your ignorance”.

Therein lies the only problems in this thread. Of the 8 pages, 19 participants and very interesting information there has been no attacks made directly on any one belief.

If you feel deep in your heart that you must defend your beliefs against all attacks both real and imagined then I suggest you do it elsewhere. Though there is a lot of truth in your words of, “I understand many, many, many people do not like the Catholic Church in any way shape or form”, it is this understanding that should allow you to show a little compassion and not revert to name calling as a form of your defense against an imagined attack.

I had made the suggestion earlier that if a person felt the least bit taken aback by this subject matter then they should ‘unsubscribe’ from this thread.

Because of my interest in learning things that I was unfamiliar with before I wish to thank people like Bob Saunders for supplying some wonderful links to expand my mind. When linking to such sources of information I am greeted with the subject matter and organization supplying the information. Upon reading the subject and the organization I have the ability to read on or disconnect depending upon my threshold of wanting to learn of that subject.

If you should make one more post to this thread which has no bearing on the subject matter I will delete it. From the words of our infamous leader Robert, “You call it censorship, we call it moderating. You call it freedom of speech, we just laugh and suggest you go find another website”.

Rick

Sorry board members carry on.

[Rick Snyder]

Get it back on proper track.

[Rick Snyder]

Cobraboy,

You brought this subject matter to the forefront and we have gone through 8 pages of discussion. A person such as myself has learned a lot of useful information as it applies to religion here in the DR which helps me better understand the workings of religion here in everyday life. I must admit that I have always wondered why some people, such as my in-laws, claim to be devote Catholics and read from the bible every time things seem to go astray and then go out to the back house to light candles, concoct brews to sprinkle on their premises and dance around chanting words that I can't deciper and all done without the proverbial bible in attendance. I now am sure I understand why and for that I thank you for bringing this subject up.

It would appear that the reasoning for your original question has been answered and there is no reason to go into whether a person should consider it wrong or right or to converse on other aspects of beliefs.

Due to that I have decided that this thread is now closed as any further discussion is more than likely to cross the bounds of acceptability as it relates to rules on DR1. I am doing this as it seems to be the prudent thing to do at this time and would suggest that if anyone feels they have something they wish to say to any particular person that they do so by PM.

Rick